IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA OMP No. 1191 of 2025 In Civil Suit No. 20 of 2025. Reserved on : 9th December, 2025 Decided on : 12th December, 2025 Atul Thakur & Anr. …….Applicants In Re:- Ashok Kumar …...Plaintiff/non-applicant. Versus Hari Singh & others …Defendants/non-applicants. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the plaintiff/non-applicant: Mr. Tejasvi Sharma, Advocate. For the Defendants/respondents: Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, Advocate, for defendants No.1 to 9. Mr. Aastha Kohli, Advocate, for defendants No.11 to 17. Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for defendant No.10. For the Applicants: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pranjal Munjal, Advocate. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Satyen Vaidya, Judge Applicants Atul Thakur and Neetu Rana, by way of instant application, have sought their impleadment as defendants in Civil Suit No. 20 of 2025. 2. The land with respect to which the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 20 of 2025 and the applicants herein are staking their respective claims is comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 34/40, Khasra Nos. 400, 401, 402, 403, measuring 00-35-54 hectares situated in Up-Mohal Bahang, Phati Buruwa, Kothi and Tehsil Manali, District Kullu, H.P. (for short the “land in question”). 3. Indisputably, the land in question is owned by the defendants in Civil Suit No. 20 of 2025. 4. In Civil Suit No. 20 of 2025, plaintiff is asserting his right as lessee over the land in question besides other parcels of land belonging to defendants (the entire subject matter of Civil Suit No. 20 of 2025 shall hereafter be referred to as the “suit land”). It is claimed by the plaintiff that the entire suit land had been leased in his favour by the predecessors-in-interest of some of the defendants and 3 remaining defendants vide registered lease deeds dated 26.05.2011 and 27.05.2011 for a period of 35 years. Plaintiff claims to have been put in possession of the suit land in terms of aforesaid lease deeds. He also claims to have invested more than Rs. five crores to raise amusement park on the suit land. 5. It is further the case of the plaintiff that during the pendency of lease deed, a number of owners of the leased land died and for such reason lease deeds were cancelled on 31.03.2022 and 21.4.2023. Fresh lease deeds were executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the suit land on 31.03.2022. 6. Plaintiff has also alleged in the plaint that on 22.03.2025, defendants with the help and aid of their agents entered the suit land with a JCB Machine and forcefully demolished the structures raised by the plaintiff and caused extensive damage to the entire suit land, buildings and structures erected thereon. The plaintiff is stated to have reported the matter to the police on 25.03.2025 vide FIR No. 40 of 2025 registered at Police Station Manali, District Kullu under Sections 329(1), 4 324(5) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. On such allegations, the plaintiff has claimed damages to the tune of Rs.1,83,68,560/- against the defendants. 7. Plaintiff has further alleged that the defendants and their agents had tress-passed into the suit land without any right, title or interest. As per the plaintiff, illegal activities of defendants were continuing as they were openly threatening the plaintiff to oust him from the suit land by use of force. It has also been alleged by the plaintiff that the defendants and their agents are trying to further create third party rights on the suit land and have been threatening to transfer the suit land by creating charge thereon. In this backdrop, a decree has been sought for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff is in peaceful and legal possession of the suit land on the basis of duly registered lease deeds dated 26.05.2011, 27.05.2011 and 31.03.2022. Additionally, a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants or their agents from interfering in the suit land; dispossessing, ousting, damaging, alienating, 5 creating any charge or third-party rights in the suit land has also been prayed for. 8. The applicants have sought their impleadment as defendants by claiming rights over the land in question as lessees. It is alleged that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed true, complete and correct picture. As per the applicants, the lease deeds executed in favour of plaintiff by the defendants in the year 2011 had been cancelled and thereafter, the defendants had executed a registered lease deed dated 31.01.2025 in favour of the applicants with respect to the land in question. It has also been pleaded that the factum of aforesaid lease deed in favour of the applicants has also been recorded in the records of rights vide mutation entry No. 487. On such premise, the applicants are claiming themselves to be holders of lawful possession of the land in question. 9. It has specifically been pleaded in the application that prior to filing of the suit, the plaintiff had due knowledge of execution of lease deed dated 31.01.2025 in favour of the applicants, but he had 6 intentionally and deliberately failed to implead the application as party to the suit. 10. As per the applicants, the plaintiff has also claimed interim injunction in the suit and by way of ad - interim order dated 02.05.2025, defendants have already been restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit land save and except by due process of law till further orders. It has been claimed that the rights of the applicants qua the land in question are going to be affected by the adjudication in the suit filed by the plaintiff and thus, they are the necessary parties to the suit. 11. In reply to the application for impleadment, the plaintiff has reiterated the stand as projected in the plaint. Circumstances under which the earlier lease deeds were cancelled and fresh lease deeds were executed have been sought to be explained by stating that the original owners had died and in order to avoid legal implications, fresh lease deeds were executed. Plaintiff has thus reiterated his right to hold and possess the suit land as lessee. The averments made in the application have been denied. The lease deed allegedly executed by the defendants in favour 7 of the applicants has been alleged to be fraudulent, collusive and void. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the entire record carefully. 13. Record reveals that the defendants have corroborated the stand of the applicants. In the written statement filed by defendants No. 1 to 9, it has been specifically submitted that lease deeds had been executed in favour of plaintiff on 26.05.2011 and were registered on 28.05.2011 but the same stood cancelled by way of registered deeds of cancellation dated 31.03.2022 and 21.04.2023. It has been submitted that the plaintiff had duly acknowledged and signed the aforesaid cancellation deeds. As regards, fresh lease deeds dated 31.03.2022 on the basis of which plaintiff has claimed the right, title or interest in the suit land, the defendants have alleged such transaction to be result of fraud. It has been alleged that the plaintiff has misused the signatures of defendants on blank papers as signatures were obtained on the pretext that the cancellation deeds would be prepared. In support of their contention, it has been suggested that the 8 lease deeds executed on 26.05.2011 were registered documents, whereas the subsequent lease deed dated 31.03.2022 was an unregistered documents having no legal value. 14. The defendants have, thus, made a specific averment that after 31.01.2025, the applicants were in possession of the land in question. 15. In the plaint, plaintiff had raised apprehension that the defendants were going to create third party rights in the suit land. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the suit land had been damaged by the defendants and their agents on 22.03.2025. The plaint was instituted on 11.04.2025. 16. The facts which have evolved from the pleadings of the parties, suggest that the alleged acts of intrusion into the suit land by defendants and their agents was preceded by the execution of lease deed in favour of the applicants with respect to the land in question. Plaintiff has relied upon certain complaints made by him to various authorities and has filed such documents with the plaint. One of the documents filed by the plaintiff is a copy of 9 complaint made to Tehsildar, Manali on 21.3.2025 inter- alia reflecting the knowledge of plaintiff regarding execution of lease with respect to land in question in favour of third party. To similar effect are the contents of another document filed by the plaintiff i.e. the complaint addressed to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manali, purportedly received in the office of said officer on 20.03.2025. Thus, it can be prima facie inferred that plaintiff had knowledge of creation of third-party rights in the land in question even before the alleged date of intrusion i.e. 22.3.2025. 17. Another document i.e. copy of complaint dated 25.03.2025 submitted by plaintiff to the In-charge Police Station, Manali makes reference to name of one of the applicants Atul Thakur, who allegedly had damaged the suit land with the help of JCB machine on 22.03.2025. 18. Copy of registered lease deed dated 31.01.2025 executed in favour of applicants by the defendants and mutation recorded on its basis are also on record. 19. The defendants, as noticed above, have disputed the claim of the plaintiff and more particularly, validity 10 and legality of an unregistered deed dated 31.03.2022. Thus, the claim of plaintiff with respect to land in question will be determined on conclusion of trial of the suit. Evidently, the lease deed dated 31.01.2025 executed by the defendants in favour of the applicants has not been challenged. 20. The bonafide of plaintiff can prima facie be doubted as he had neither made necessary averments regarding the lease deed of applicants in the plaint nor had claimed any relief with respect thereto in the suit. Communications addressed by the plaintiff to the authorities, as noticed above, before filing of suit, prima facie suggest that he was having knowledge of execution of lease deed dated 31.01.2025. Even otherwise, the plaintiff had sufficient time to ascertain such fact before filing of suit. 21. In the given circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the adjudication as sought by the plaintiff in the suit will affect the rights in the suit land as claimed by the applicants and thus, the applicants are necessary party to the suit. 11 22. In result, the instant application is allowed and the applicants are ordered to be impleaded as defendants No.18 and 19 in Civil Suit No.20 of 2025. Application stands disposed of. 23. The observations made hereinabove are made only for the purposes of adjudication of the application for impleadment and shall have no effect whatsoever on the merits of case, which shall be decided purely on its merits. (Satyen Vaidya) 12th December, 2025. Judge (jai)